Crichel Down

I think Chris is right. I was getting muddled up between LPC and the Railway World periodicals (which included MRC). I have sometimes joked that the article on 'the Crichel Down affair' must have bored the pants off the readers of MRC, and thereby contributed to the demise of the magazine only 18 months later. (But that is an unwarranted libel on Chris's editorship.)

Since it has generated some discussion, perhaps I could clarify the position with regard to the ownership of Model Railway News, Model Railway Constructor and Railway Modeller. Model Railway News was founded by Percival Marchall in 1925 (who was also the founder of Model Engineer in 1899 and was its publisher). The Percival Marshall publishing group was acquired in the mid-1960s (about 1966?) by Model Aeronautical Press (‘MAP’), who changed their name to Model & Allied Publications (also ‘MAP’) to reflect their broader range of publications. MAP later became Argus Press, and was then swept up in further amalgamations. MAP changed the name of MRN to Model Railways in the early 1970s, but successive relaunches (including the short-lived ‘Your Model Railway ' title) failed to revive its fortunes, and it ceased publication in 1993. Model Railway Constructor was founded in 1934 and privately published. It eventually came under the ownership of the Locomotive Publishing Company, who in their turn were taken over by Ian Allan in the mid-1950s (about 1957?). The Constructor was therefore ‘inherited’ by Ian Allan at that time with LPC’s other publications. Publication ceased in 1987. The Railway Modeller was founded by Ian Allan in the late 1940s, but it failed to take off and was sold to Sidney Pritchard of Peco in 1951, who formed a subsidiary company, Peco Publications & Publicity for the purpose. Cyril Freezer had become editor of Railway Modeller before the takeover, and moved with the magazine to Peco’s HQ at Seaton. The magazine was given a makeover in January 1952, and after that the title never looked back. It remains part of the Peco group, and is now the longest surviving model railway magazine, having the been the market leader since the mid-1950s.

I would be happy to pre-order one of these models of the Diagram N autotrailer if I could understand which catologue number applies to which livery variant. (Am I the only modeller who is confused about this?) Perhaps "coeurdelyon" could clarify Dapol's intentions regarding the livery variants that they intend to offer. I am unclear whether the fully lined out version of the chocolate and cream livery (1922 to 1927) is one of those to be offered, and if so which catalogue number applies to this variant. If only the plainer chocolate and cream livery is to be offered (1927 onwards) this would be equally acceptable, but again, I would be grateful to know precisely which catalogue number applies to that variant.

Oh dear! I've just noticed that the digital mock-up shows a BLANK luggage end (correct for BR versions, but NOT for this vehicle in pre-2WW condition). This means that 13 of the advertised variants will be wrong if supplied as shown, and only the 3 BR variants would be correct. I don't want to have to cut out the luggage end windows myself. (It's bad enough having to do it on the A30 trailer), so I hope that Dapol will correct this detail before they go into production.

I learnt about this when I got an email from Hatton's yesterday. I have wanted a 4mm version of the Diagram N autrotrailer for a long time, and it seemed a logical step for Dapol to produce this model, when they have had the 'Lionheart' 7mm version in their range for quite a few years. Whilst there were only six of them, this model will be the first 4mm model of a purpose-built timber-panelled trailer (as distinct from SRM conversions). The only query I have is the distinction between the 002 ("lined chocolate and cream") and 003 ("Twin cities crest - Chocolate and Cream") livery variants. 003 is self-explanatory (the 1927-1934 livery). But is 002 intended to be the fully lined 1922-1927 livery, with the beading picked out in black? I would be happy with either, but if both are going to be offered I would like to be clear as to the livery differences between these two models before choosing which to order.

I am aware of the source from which my information came, but I received it indirectly, and so I do not have sufficient certainty to enable me to quote the reported statement. I am not in the business of peddling rumours, so I don't think it right to comment further. I had expected that something definite would have emerged by now, but in the absence of any further news during the course of today I am beginning to doubt the accuracy of the information that was passed on to me. Which makes it unwise to add anything further at this stage.

I have been informed this morning of an announcement that has been made by or about Eileen's Emporium, but because I have not seen the actual text of the announcement itself, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on it. Hopefully, more definite news will be published fairly soon.

Re postal delivery of MRJ. The current problem is the same for the postal delivery of all publications that are sent out by that means. Subscribers are at the mercy of Royal Mail so far as delivery times are concerned. The publishers can't be blamed for items taking up to a week to drop through individual readers' letterboxes. Patience is not only a virtue; it is an essential attribute for any serious model-maker. MRJ is widely available in shops if postal delivery is too slow for you. I have maintained my subscriptions to several publications by post, simply because of lockdowns in the past two years, and continuing uncertainty about the covid situation.

On the subject of the display of enamel adverts, I strongly agree with 'Rule 1'. I like these adverts too. My 'base' period on the Burford Branch allows me to add them with a clear conscience, but I sometimes run stock on the layout from a later period, and I just shrug my shoulders at this and other anachronisms in those circumstances. My general approach is that I like to know what the correct position was, and then (if I choose to do so) I simply ignore it - Rule 1 again.

It has been obvious throughout this thread that Kevin knows exactly how buildings are put together, and his professional knowledge has clearly informed the construction of his model buildings. They are an object lesson for model-makers - accurately observed and correctly detailed. (Mark Tatlow, whom I mentioned earlier, is also a building surveyor. So is, or was before retirement, Chris Lamacraft, among others. Building surveyors are well represented among the ranks of railway modellers.)

Aha! So the secret is out; Kevin is/was a 'civil' (i.e. civil engineer). I wonder if you knew Peter Tatlow, Kevin? He was with Mouchel. Long since retired and living in Hampshire. He started his career as a bridge engineer on the Southern Region, and while at Mouchel's did a lot of work on ground anchors. He is an expert on the Highland Railway (as is his son Mark). Peter is also a prolific railway author.

I see that the artwork shown by Kevin on this thread earlier this afternoon includes reproductions of a selection of enamel adverts. These were a colourful and attractive feature of the period railway scene (and were also seen elsewhere). However, there was a discussion on the S4 webforum in April of this year (on page 17 of the thread dealing with my own layout) here - https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1846&start=400#p83980 about the rapid disappearance of enamel adverts from GWR stations in the mid-1930s. It seems that this resulted from the termination of the contract between the GWR and Wyman’s who had been responsible for booking and displaying these adverts on GWR stations. It seems that this type of advertising was considered obsolete, and (with one notable exception, mentioned below) reliance was thereafter placed solely on paper posters. So, for a layout based in the late 1930s (i.e. post-1935), maybe no enamel ads should be displayed (except the famous VIROL ads, which lasted into the 1950s, and seem to have disappeared in 1958). It is possible that some enamel ads may have continued to be seen on private commercial premises through simple inertia, but they seem to have been systematically removed from railway premises by 1935, being replaced by printed paper posters (which had begun to appear earlier in the 20th century). This no doubt accounts for the omission from the 1936 General Appendix to the GWR Rule Book of instructions for the display of enamel ads that had appeared in earlier editions of the Appendix, whereas detailed and prescriptive instructions for the display of enamel adverts had been included in the 1920 General Appendix.

Sorry for a rather belated response. It is helpful to understand that there is a distinction between, on the one hand, complete repainting, (i.e. stripping down to bear wood or metal, sanding it down, applying primer again and then building up the paint layer by layer, plus lettering and final varnishing), which I understand was infrequent, and on the other hand, a rather less thoroughgoing refurbishment of the paintwork, involving no more than rubbing down the topmost layer of paint and varnish, which would also remove the lettering and lining, and simply applying another topcoat of paint, fresh lettering and lining, and a coat of varnish. I believe the GWR would give their coaches this lighter cosmetic treatment at roughly two-yearly intervals, but this would have resulted in the coaching stock being returned to service displaying the latest livery, even though this had not been a total repaint. It follows that new livery details and revised insignia would appear on coaches over a period of no more than two years or so after a livery change was first introduced. So the plain 1927 coach livery would have been universally applied no later than 1929. One other point of interest. The 1927 coach livery was very plain indeed, with only a single thin black line separating the cream upper panels with the brown lower panels. By 1928, the powers that be at Swindon had decided that there should be a gold [yellow] and back line along the waist. So by 1930, this further alteration would have been universally applied to coaches, followed a short time afterwards (and I can’t remember exactly when) by a second line of yellow and black on what would originally have been the lower waist moulding (although, not on suburban stock, so far as I am aware).

The same query relates to all GWR service vehicles. BR(WR) seem to have painted these wagons black, but the general consensus seems to be that the GWR painted them freight stock grey. However, I did an experiment a good few years ago, in which I painted one GW LOCO coal wagon black, and another grey but heavily weathered. The resulting appearance of both wagons, when weathered, was identical, and it was impossible to say which had been painted grey and which had been painted black. I suspect that this is the practical answer to this question.

In case it may be of interest, in December 2017 I posted these details of a couple of models I made : https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5660#p57501 In one case, I had to 'fudge' the SIPHON branding; in the other I established that the Siphon branding wasn't carried at all. (Very convenient!)